Posted by Webleymkv: Did anyone here ever stop to consider that the best gun for one person might not be the best gun for another? For example, someone who, should they have to use a gun in self-defense, is most likely to be faced with a group of small to average sized attackers at moderate range is probably better served with a different gun than the person who has to worry more about one or two very large attackers at very close range.
Well, the likelihood of either happening is very low indeed, and the likelihood of one vs the other happening is neither predictable nor apt to be a function of who the defender is.
You see, no one gun can be the best for everything so we must decide which attributes are most important and which ones are subject to compromise.
No argument there.
I once carried a Centennial Airweight--small and light, but with limited capacity, and with its tough DA pull, difficult for me to shoot accurately and rapidly.
For those reasons, I now generally carry a compact polymer-framed 9MM striker fired semi-auto--small and light, more capacity, and somewhat easier to shoot.
If I were to have to shoot at a greater range, it might not be ideal; for that I would prefer a heavier, larger .45 semiautomatic with less capacity but with a good SA trigger pull and good sights. I can hit a lot better with it.
Eight rounds, by the way.
But I do have to decide in advance, and yes, compromise.